Dataset Information

Root causes and preventability of emergency department presentations of older patients: a prospective observational study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

More older patients are presenting to the emergency department (ED). It is important to know why these patients present and if the ED is the best place for them to receive the care they need. The primary aim of this study was to identify organisational-related, technical-related, healthcare worker-related and patient-related factors leading to ED presentations of older patients. The secondary aim was to determine patients' and caregivers' perspectives on what kinds of ED presentations are potentially preventable.

Design

This is a prospective observational study. A root cause analysis was performed by the Prevention and Recovery Information System for Monitoring and Analysis method. It used basic administrative data collected from patient records and interviews of patients, general practitioners (GPs) and physicians at the ED.

Setting

The ED of an academic hospital in the Netherlands.

Participants

100 older patients (aged ≥70 years) who attended the ED between November 2017 and March 2018.

Results

In 100 patients presenting to the ED, 159 factors that contributed to presentation were identified; most of these factors were related to underlying diseases (59%) and patient-related factors (18%). These presentations were considered potentially preventable by 23% of the physicians at the ED and 21% of the GPs, but only 10% of the patients. In only four cases was there overall agreement between the patients and the healthcare workers.

Conclusion

The most frequent underlying factors contributing to an ED presentation in older patients are disease-related and patient-related. The low percentage of ED presentations considered potentially preventable shows that a 'preventable ED presentation' is difficult to define and therefore interventions to reduce them are unlikely to be simple. Novel solutions within the acute care pathway are required in order to deliver care of optimal quality and safety to older patients.

SUBMITTER: Driesen B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8340285 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is a high degree of variability in assessing the preventability of adverse drug events, limiting the ability to compare rates of preventable adverse drug events across different studies. We compared three methods for determining preventability of adverse drug events in emergency department patients and explored their strengths and weaknesses.MethodsThis mixed-methods study enrolled emergency department patients diagnosed with at least one adverse drug event from three prior prospective studies. A clinical pharmacist and physician reviewed the medical and research records of all patients, and independently rated each event's preventability using a "best practice-based" approach, an "error-based" approach, and an "algorithm-based" approach. Raters discussed discordant ratings until reaching consensus. We assessed the inter-rater agreement between clinicians using the same assessment method, and between different assessment methods using Cohen's kappa with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Qualitative researchers observed discussions, took field notes, and reviewed free text comments made by clinicians in a "comment" box in the data collection form. We developed a coding structure and iteratively analyzed qualitative data for emerging themes regarding the application of each preventability assessment method using NVivo.ResultsAmong 1356 adverse drug events, a best practice-based approach rated 64.1% (95% CI: 61.5-66.6%) of events as preventable, an error-based approach rated 64.3% (95% CI: 61.8-66.9%) of events as preventable, and an algorithm-based approach rated 68.8% (95% CI: 66.1-71.1%) of events as preventable. When applying the same method, the inter-rater agreement between clinicians was 0.53 (95% CI: 0.48-0.59), 0.55 (95%CI: 0.50-0.60) and 0.55 (95% CI: 0.49-0.55) for the best practice-, error-, and algorithm-based approaches, respectively. The inter-rater agreement between different assessment methods using consensus ratings for each ranged between 0.88 (95% CI 0.85-0.91) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00). Compared to a best practice-based assessment, clinicians believed the algorithm-based assessment was too rigid. It did not account for the complexities of and variations in clinical practice, and frequently was too definitive when assigning preventability ratings.ConclusionThere was good agreement between all three methods of determining the preventability of adverse drug events. However, clinicians found the algorithmic approach constraining, and preferred a best practice-based assessment method.

Project description:ObjectivesCapillary blood lactate testing with handheld analysers has great advantages to reduce the time needed for clinical decisions, and for extended use in the prehospital setting. We investigated the agreement of capillary lactate measured using handheld analysers (CL-Nova and CL-Scout+ measured by Nova and Lactate Scout+ analyzers) and the reference venous level assessed using a point-of-care testing (POCT) blood gas analyser (VL-Ref).DesignA prospective observational study.SettingA university teaching hospital emergency department in Hong Kong.ParticipantsPatients triaged as 'urgent' (Category 3 of a 5-point scale), aged ≥18 years during 2016 were eligible. 240 patients (mean age 69.9 years) were recruited.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was the agreement of the capillary blood lactate level measured by handheld lactate analyser when compared with the reference standard technique, namely venous blood samples obtained by venepuncture and analysed using the blood gas analyser. The secondary outcome measure was the difference in values of venous lactate using blood gas analysers and handheld lactate analysers.ResultsThe results of VL-Ref ranged from 0.70 to 5.38 mmol/L (mean of 1.96 mmol/L). Regarding capillary lactate measurements, the bias (mean difference) between VL-Ref and CL-Scout+ was -0.22 with 95% limits of agreement (LOA) of -2.17 to 1.73 mmol/L and the bias between VL-Ref and CL-Nova was 0.46, with LOA of -1.08 to 2.00 mmol/L. For venous lactate, results showed the bias between VL-Ref and VL-Scout+ was 0.22 with LOA being -0.46 to 0.90 mmol/L, and the bias between VL-Ref and VL-Nova was 0.83 mmol/L with LOA -0.01 to 1.66 mmol/L.ConclusionOur study shows poor agreement between capillary lactate and reference values. The study does not support the clinical utility of capillary lactate POCT. However, venous lactate measured by Scout+ handheld analyser may have potential for screening patients who may need further testing.Trial registration numberNCT02694887.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the role of sex in the presentation and management of children attending the emergency department (ED).DesignThe TrIAGE project (TRiage Improvements Across General Emergency departments), a prospective observational study based on curated electronic health record data.SettingFive diverse European hospitals in four countries (Austria, The Netherlands, Portugal, UK).ParticipantsAll consecutive paediatric ED visits of children under the age of 16 during the study period (8-36 months between 2012 and 2015).Main outcome measuresThe association between sex (male of female) and diagnostic tests and disease management in general paediatric ED visits and in subgroups presenting with trauma or musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal and respiratory problems and fever. Results from the different hospitals were pooled in a random effects meta-analysis.Results116 172 ED visits were included of which 63 042 (54%) by boys and 53 715 (46%) by girls. Boys accounted for the majority of ED visits in childhood, and girls in adolescence. After adjusting for age, triage urgency and clinical presentation, girls had more laboratory tests compared with boys (pooled OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15). Additionally, girls had more laboratory tests in ED visits for respiratory problems (pooled OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.26) and more imaging in visits for trauma or musculoskeletal problems (pooled OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.20) and respiratory conditions (pooled OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.24). Girls with respiratory problems were less often treated with inhalation medication (pooled OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.83). There was no difference in hospital admission between the sexes (pooled OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.04).ConclusionIn childhood, boys represent the majority of ED visits and they receive more inhalation medication. Unexpectedly, girls receive more diagnostic tests compared with boys. Further research is needed to investigate whether this is due to pathophysiological differences and differences in disease course, whether girls present signs and symptoms differently, or whether sociocultural factors are responsible.